Originally Posted by ID2006 I'm not looking at this in a simplistic manner or the short term, but I don't intend to write an entire treatise on it, either.

If you don't intend to write a treatise on it, you'd probably benefit by reading the ones by people who have. David Kopel in particular has a wealth of information on the subject. Especially in regards to registration. They're highly good reads and they're based in real life, not conjecture. His latest testimony is from 1/30/13 and available right on the front page.

http://davekopel.org/

Originally Posted by Mad39er If you don't intend to write a treatise on it, you'd probably benefit by reading the ones by people who have. David Kopel in particular has a wealth of information on the subject. Especially in regards to registration. They're highly good reads and they're based in real life, not conjecture. His latest testimony is from 1/30/13 and available right on the front page. http://davekopel.org/

I read most of it, including the part about registration. His problem with registration in that article has nothing to do with its effectiveness. He's only concerned with it leading to confiscation. He actually gives a suggested solution for Congress to prohibit state and local registries. I would say that the same could be done for confiscation. Prohibit confiscation, but allow the registry. There you go. As long as the federal government keeps the states in check, you won't have confiscation.

Anyway, comparing us to other democratic nations is incongruent. No other nation had a constitution like ours that embedded gun rights into its foundation. The US was born after the invention of guns and is in the unique position to protect the right to own (and as you probably know, the Supreme Court already has set precedent for this) while still allowing a healthy amount of regulation that allows people to peacefully own guns for whatever legal reasons they wish.

I'm not schilling any particular lawmaker's plans. I'm just saying that an appropriate law can be made that works with gun registration. I'd rather have none than a distorted or corrupted law, on the other hand.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/rough...189536271.html

how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?

Originally Posted by ID2006 I read most of it, including the part about registration. His problem with registration in that article has nothing to do with its effectiveness. He's only concerned with it leading to confiscation. He actually gives a suggested solution for Congress to prohibit state and local registries. I would say that the same could be done for confiscation. Prohibit confiscation, but allow the registry. There you go. As long as the federal government keeps the states in check, you won't have confiscation.

I admire your ability to think the Federal Government has the duty to keep the States in check but the reality is that the States have a duty to keep the Federal Government in check.

For registration to "work", it has to be done on a Federal level, across the country. New York State has acknowledged that and said that 80% of the guns used in crimes in New York did not come from New York, that registration has no effect on gun crime in New York. New York's registration policies require the rest of the US to fall into compliance as stated by countless Democrats when they explained their votes. This is the slippery slope that is made fun of, because the perception is that it isn't real. It's very real, one State starts something and uses momentum to push the next ones into action. Massachusets and Maryland are next. They're proposing registration and confiscation.

Registration is the flawed theory that by keeping track of all the guns you can keep them out of bad hands. If you institute kiosks for NICS checks and require them for private sales you'll do a lot better of a job. NICS accessibility has to be expanded because registration does not work in it's proposed form, it does not work on the State level. It cannot work if all States do not agree to it and they don't, at all. NICS checks work, they're not less "universal" than the proposed universal background checks, they use the exact same system.

What makes universal background checks universal? The requirement of gun registration. But that has nothing to do with a background check now does it? Except when you perform them on law abiding citizens, it tells you how many guns they have in their possession. Does not affect crime when applied to a law abiding citizen, because criminals are forced out of the system and will not register or submit to background checks. What you'll catch is the stupid ones who do it.

California instituted a process requiring a thumb print for ammunition purchases. They've managed to remove illegal guns from the street without requiring background checks based on the purchases of ammunition by people who should not be making them. While I don't agree a thumb print is ideal, it's less invasive and allows the criminals to incriminate themselves more easily and readily than the prospect of a background check and/or registration. Its something that actually works but nobody from California is pushing the thumb print system, they're pushing registration and outright banning of classes of guns.

Originally Posted by mykevermin http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/rough...189536271.html how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?

Indeed, mental illness and guns don't mix. Is any side disputing this?

Of course mental illness and guns don't mix...

Maybe you can explain why a Navy Seal brought a equally mentally unstable solider to a gun range ?only to be shot and killed by the unstable solider

Originally Posted by Finger_Shocker Maybe you can explain why a Navy Seal brought a equally mentally unstable solider to a gun range ?only to be shot and killed by the unstable solider

No idea. I'm not sure what they were aware of regarding Ruth.

-And "equally mentally unstable?" Are you saying Kyle and the other individual at the range were unstable?

Originally Posted by h3llbring3r Indeed, mental illness and guns don't mix. Is any side disputing this?

One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.

Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.

Originally Posted by mykevermin One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.

I see flip flops within the NRA on expanding background checks and the overwhelming support within members of the gun owning public as well (running what ~80% support depending on sources) on that same subject.
Its implementation is where controversy may arise: Is the check going to be a simple background check on individuals or are we going to include serial numbers and types of weapons purchased, thus back-dooring registration and tracking (thereby explaining the rift between NRA board-members and the PAC's party-line)?


It's the rest of your "legitimate policy" that many in the group of potentially affected legal gunowners take issue with, as it is driven with a rush to capitalize on emotion and the waning shift in public sentiment driven by conflation, general lack of knowledge regarding, and out and out lies vis–à–vis "automatics/" assault rifles/"assault weapons," magazine capacities, and aesthetics.

Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.

Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by h3llbring3r I see flip flops within the NRA on expanding background checks and the overwhelming support within members of the gun owning public as well (running what ~80% support depending on sources) on that same subject.

The public face of the NRA has done anything but "flip-flop" on the issue.

God, I hate that phrase. Anyway.

Its implementation is where controversy may arise: Is the check going to be a simple background check on individuals or are we going to include serial numbers and types of weapons purchased, thus back-dooring registration and tracking (thereby explaining the rift between NRA board-members and the PAC's party-line)?

Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?

Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.

Wow, Chris Kyle was more of a hero than you, and the extent of your family will probably ever be. Keep being an obscure jackass, because that will be your significance.

Originally Posted by mykevermin http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/rough...189536271.html how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?

You again?

Was it you or one of your cronies that stated how you don't see why people can't just shoot guns at ranges and stuff? Should they have to hold the guns for us just in case now too? Maybe only blanks at the ranges, just in case?

Originally Posted by mykevermin One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.

I see you still haven't gotten around to defending your "ideas" huh? Taking a few pointers from the media on shocking us, and then aweing us with your "ideas" with no factual backup?

Originally Posted by mykevermin Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?

Because of what it will eventually and inevitably lead to for one. It will be very ineffective in stopping the violence, and won't a list of all gun owners be handy if they decide confiscation is the only course of action that will stop the violence?

Originally Posted by mykevermin Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?

Again: The role of "registration" preceding confiscation is well documented in western societies, if it is something that must be conceded to prevent knee-jerk and unfounded prohibitions . . .so be it, but I'd still oppose it on those grounds.

Is it constitutional? Should one be afforded privacy in pursuing and applying a constitutional right? I've been enraged that anonymous free speech has being targeted on the internet. I think women choosing an abortion shouldn't be forced to have the state make their information public. It's certainly open to interpretation, and I'd be interested, but leery, to watch the courts test this.

As others have repeatedly stated in this thread, myself included, much of it has to do with the "legitimate sporting use" fallacy in regards to the 2A. Before the myrmidons respond with "muskets, polite society, this is the 21st century and other 'pablum'" most advocates follow the reasonably limited "arms in kind" prescription and interpretation (Scalia's vague dictem not withstanding).

The majority of gun owners willfully accept, endorse and already concede strict prohibitions on: AoW, NFA arms, suppressors, automatic weapons (read: what are by definition assault-rifles, via a de facto ban and the reasonable high hurdles of legal ownership for those ones that remain), and onerous constraints on the aforementioned and on all "destructive devices."

Yet despite all the above, opponents to this day still mindlessly scream "obstinance" and "you're a totalitarian who opposes all curbs and 'reasonable restrictions'" when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Those with significant experience and versed in arms become enraged at banning certain semi-automatics because of aesthetics (many of which actually make arms safer and simply more ergonomic) and prohibitions on mag capacities- it is just where a number of advocates draw the line, lest one accept the 2A doesn't really mean anything.

I know that in your choosen vocation you likely know the numbers, and are well aware that ~99% of gun realted crimes are not committed with what the opponent seek to prohibit/ban. You yourself have reflected on the poor impact (poor at best, according to flawed and debatable research) of the last AWB.

Sadly, the public at large has no political will to go after or otherwise constrain "uncle Willy's shotgun" and low capacity handguns. Despite the fact those arms constitute what is many times more significant role in homicides by firearms (but I assume you already know this from your previous statements). So the opposition uses panic to nip around the edges of the 2A and impact non-hunters and/or non "sporting firearms" (despite 3 gun sports being the most popular and fastest growing segment of target shooting) and instead goes after arms & that class of gun which it finds morally repugnant (since the numbers don't justify the rationale behind the AWB) and an uninformed and emotional public will give-up on in the ephemeral panic.

I can't wait until Obama is elected Dictator Fo Lyfe Yo! in 2014 so he can take away everybody's guns...maybe except black people because Hitler. I'm going to put that on my Shit That Won't Ever Happen List along with the government confiscating everyone's gun because of some semantic bullshit about a "backdoor" registry and slippery slope.

It's fairly obvious that gun fetishists have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence when their entire defense is a nebulous concept of "tyranny" and superficial understanding of legislation as if gun control is about stopping every single event. Hell, if we can't cure cancer, then why the fight it or even treat it, right? It's goddamn looney tunes. There isn't even any interest in learning about what causes those crimes because they're treated like they exist in a vacuum.

Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? Jerking each other off about freedom fries, respecting the office of the president, and calling anyone that didn't want an all out war a traitor and/or treasonous. It's as if FFL logs are just around to kill trees and the Feds/ATF/Illuminati to put software on your computer to keep tabs on you. Does the saying, "If you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" ring a bell? Well now you're going to have to eat it when shit you don't like gets served up. Just desserts and all that...

If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by dohdough I can't wait until Obama is elected Dictator Fo Lyfe Yo! in 2014 so he can take away everybody's guns...maybe except black people because Hitler. I'm going to put that on my Shit That Won't Ever Happen List along with the government confiscating everyone's gun because of some semantic bullshit about a "backdoor" registry and slippery slope. It's fairly obvious that gun fetishists have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence when their entire defense is a nebulous concept of "tyranny" and superficial understanding of legislation as if gun control is about stopping every single event. Hell, if we can't cure cancer, then why the fight it or even treat it, right? It's goddamn looney tunes. There isn't even any interest in learning about what causes those crimes because they're treated like they exist in a vacuum. Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? Jerking each other off about freedom fries, respecting the office of the president, and calling anyone that didn't want an all out war a traitor and/or treasonous. It's as if FFL logs are just around to kill trees and the Feds/ATF/Illuminati to put software on your computer to keep tabs on you. Does the saying, "If you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" ring a bell? Well now you're going to have to eat it when shit you don't like gets served up. Just desserts and all that... If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.

Shocker, the normal attack on the opposing side without mentioning why any of your ideas are good ones. Surprise!

So I am assuming you believe the "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" situation now then? You pointing out people's hypocrisy is pointing out your own...dumb dumb.

Originally Posted by h3llbring3r Again: The role of "registration" preceding confiscation is well documented in western societies, if it is something that must be conceded to prevent knee-jerk and unfounded prohibitions . . .so be it, but I'd still oppose it on those grounds. Is it constitutional? Should one be afforded privacy in pursuing and applying a constitutional right? I've been enraged that anonymous free speech has being targeted on the internet. I think women choosing an abortion shouldn't be forced to have the state make their information public. It's certainly open to interpretation, and I'd be interested, but leery, to watch the courts test this. As others have repeatedly stated in this thread, myself included, much of it has to do with the "legitimate sporting use" fallacy in regards to the 2A. Before the myrmidons respond with "muskets, polite society, this is the 21st century and other 'pablum'" most advocates follow the reasonably limited "arms in kind" prescription and interpretation (Scalia's vague dictem not withstanding). The majority of gun owners willfully accept, endorse and already concede strict prohibitions on: AoW, NFA arms, suppressors, automatic weapons (read: what are by definition assault-rifles, via a de facto ban and the reasonable high hurdles of legal ownership for those ones that remain), and onerous constraints on the aforementioned and on all "destructive devices." Yet despite all the above, opponents to this day still mindlessly scream "obstinance" and "you're a totalitarian who opposes all curbs and 'reasonable restrictions'" when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Those with significant experience and versed in arms become enraged at banning certain semi-automatics because of aesthetics (many of which actually make arms safer and simply more ergonomic) and prohibitions on mag capacities- it is just where a number of advocates draw the line, lest one accept the 2A doesn't really mean anything. I know that in your choosen vocation you likely know the numbers, and are well aware that ~99% of gun realted crimes are not committed with what the opponent seek to prohibit/ban. You yourself have reflected on the poor impact (poor at best, according to flawed and debatable research) of the last AWB. Sadly, the public at large has no political will to go after or otherwise constrain "uncle Willy's shotgun" and low capacity handguns. Despite the fact those arms constitute what is many times more significant role in homicides by firearms (but I assume you already know this from your previous statements). So the opposition uses panic to nip around the edges of the 2A and impact non-hunters and/or non "sporting firearms" (despite 3 gun sports being the most popular and fastest growing segment of target shooting) and instead goes after arms & that class of gun which it finds morally repugnant (since the numbers don't justify the rationale behind the AWB) and an uninformed and emotional public will give-up on in the ephemeral panic.

So, then, it's constitutional.

Originally Posted by Knoell Shocker, the normal attack on the opposing side without mentioning why any of your ideas are good ones. Surprise!

I'm still waiting for you to do that search. It takes less time than it took you to type up that sentence.

So I am assuming you believe the "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" situation now then? You pointing out people's hypocrisy is pointing out your own...dumb dumb.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Nothing gets by you!

Originally Posted by dohdough blah, blah, blah Hitler. never happen. Blash, blah, race-bait. Blah, blah, fetishists . . . . have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence (despite that fact that the proposed legislation has no demonstrable evidence that it would impact the numbers anything other than nearly immeasurably despite a disparate impact on many). Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? (really, tracks individual ownership you say?) Just desserts and all that... If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.

Fixed.

I love you DohDough you're wonderfully predictable and consistent.


An emotional catalyst, individual registration and a level of political will (even if fleeting) is still needed.

Most 2A activist I know have really raged and lobbied against the NDAA and Patriot Acts and haven't been jerking themselves as you so eloquently put it.

Originally Posted by mykevermin So, then, it's constitutional.

Is it?

If you have to hem and haw about it the way you have, it's pretty evident that you haven't a leg to stand on in terms of claiming it is unconstitutional. you'd have some kind of legal precedent to fall back on, or more likely, some overwraught libertarian philosophy as to why it is. you presented neither; instead, you go on and on about, how since gun owners aren't fighting for unrestricted access to nuclear weapons, their opposition to current issues up for debate is somehow "reasonable."

The web you wove is far removed from the issue of constitutionality. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, indeed.